Another challenge in global governance through multilateralism involves national sovereignty. Regardless of the erosion of nation-states' legal and operational sovereignty in international relations, "nation-states remain the ultimate locus of authoritative decision making regarding most facets of public and private life".
[10]
Hoffman
asserted that nation-states are "unlikely to embrace abstract obligations that clash with concrete calculations of national interest."
[10]

When enacting foreign policies, governments face a choice between unilateralism,
bilateralism
and multilateralism.

Bilateralism means coordination with another single country. Multilateralism has attempted to find common ground based on generalized principles of conduct, in addition to details associated with a particular agreement.
Victor Cha
argued that: power asymmetries predict the type of structures, bilateral or multilateral, that offer the most control. If small powers try to control a larger one, then multilateralism is effective. But if great powers seek control over smaller ones, bilateral alliances are more effective.
Christian Dior Songe Ankle Boots Cheap Pick A Best Websites Cheap Price Clearance Cheap Online h42QnLN8

Thus, a country's decision to select bilateralism or multilateralism when enacting foreign policies is greatly affected by its size and power, as well as the size and power of the country over which it seeks control. Take the example of
Foreign Policy of the United States
. Many references discuss how the United States interacts with other nations. In particular, the United States chose multilateralism in Europe and decided to form , while it formed bilateral alliances, or the
Hub and spokes architecture
, in East Asia. Although there are many arguments about the reasons for this, Cha's "
powerplay
" theory provides one possible reason. He argued: